Search

Simple Summary: In this Perspective, we explore the benefits of telemedicine in extending cancer care to patients who face difficulties due to functional limitations, high symptom burden, and financial or geographic constraints. We also acknowledge the risk that telemedicine may worsen existing healthcare inequalities for patients who already face systemic disadvantages. To address these concerns and increase the likelihood that telemedicine is a tool to improve equity, we suggest practical strategies and policy recommendations aimed at ensuring high-quality, accessible telemedicine-based cancer care. Telemedicine has the potential to improve access to cancer care, particularly for patients with functional limitations, high symptom burdens, or financial or geographic constraints. However, there is also a risk that telemedicine can widen healthcare disparities among patients facing systemic disadvantages like those with technological barriers, poor digital literacy, older age, or non-English language preferences. To optimize telemedicine usage, we must implement practical strategies like video onboarding programs, user-friendly technology platforms, optimizing the clinician's environment, and best practices for using interpreters. Policy changes such as state licensing requirements, controlled substance prescribing requirements, and payment parity are also crucial. This Perspective highlights these practical strategies and policy recommendations to ensure accessible and equitable cancer care augmented by telemedicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Describe the prevalence of certain communication-related healthcare experiences from a large, nationally representative sample of US adults. 2. Highlight that people with serious illness are more likely to have negative communication-related healthcare experiences that clinicians should recognize to communicate and care for them more effectively. We sought to understand communication-related health experiences for people with and without serious illness. People with serious illness were more likely to report leaving a visit feeling unsure, being afraid to ask questions, and feeling talked down to than those without serious illness. This demonstrates people with serious illness experience inequities in communication and highlights the importance of empathetic communication. High quality communication is critical to the well-being and quality of life of those facing serious illness.[1,2] How people with serious illness engage in care and their care experience is different compared to those without serious illness.[3] We sought to better understand communication-related health experiences of individuals, including people historically marginalized: Black and Latino individuals, older adults, and people with low income or serious illness. To understand if there are differences in communication-related healthcare experiences between people with and without serious illness. We conducted a quantitative survey 4-5/2021 of a nationally representative sample of US adults, assessing participant communication experiences as outcomes. The primary predictor was having serious illness (yes/no). Self-reported covariables were age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, living in a metropolitan area, US region, and marital status. We conducted chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for covariables to assess associations between serious illness and communication outcomes. We engaged 1,854 survey participants, 19% of whom had serious illness. People with serious illness were more likely than those without serious illness to report leaving a healthcare visit feeling unsure- 18.8% serious illness vs. 8.8% no serious illness (aOR 2.33 [95% CI 1.64-3.30]); more likely to report being afraid to ask questions, speak up, or disagree- 20.5% serious illness vs. 10.5% no serious illness (aOR 2.21 [95% CI 1.57-3.11]); and to report feeling talked down to or made to feel inferior- 12.5% serious illness vs. 8.7% no serious illness (aOR 1.89 [95% CI 1.24-2.90]). These findings show that people with serious illness experience inequities in healthcare experiences and highlight the importance of empathetic communication in high-quality care. Recognizing these inequities is a critical step in improving quality of care for people with serious illness. Communication / Patient Outcomes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outcomes 1. Highlight the importance of integrating health equity themes in palliative care education 2. Outline one fellowship program's experience integrating health equity in the fellowship curriculum, including struggles and successes 3. Using the framework or approach introduced as a starting point, foster an open dialogue with participants around how to build health equity into their educational programs Palliative care clinicians are at the vanguard of caring for America's sickest and most vulnerable patients, a mission that has heightened urgency as we understand more deeply the effects of systemic racism on health inequities for seriously ill patients and their families. Understanding health equity as it relates to palliative care is essential to hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) curricula and practice, yet HPM educators may not feel they have the expertise to integrate health equity–related content and approaches into their teaching. This session will share one interprofessional palliative care fellowship's experience introducing and integrating a health equity curriculum for learners. Presenters will outline their approach, including the tactical steps taken and a brief review of materials created. They will share a 4-step framework used when creating their health equity curriculum: using HPM competencies, milestones, and entrustable professional activities to identify curricular gaps; assessing local resources and liabilities; identifying external resources; and planning and prioritizing curricular interventions. The session will then transition to breakout groups, led by session faculty, for participants to explore ideas, opportunities, and challenges that they may have experienced in integrating topics of health equity in palliative care education. We hope an open dialogue about the struggles and successes will be valuable at normalizing that this is important yet challenging work. We anticipate that different institutions will have different resources to bring forward. We hope to begin fostering a community where participants can share ideas both in the session and beyond. We will then transition back to a large group setting to review themes emerging from discussion and identify key takeaways for participants to integrate issues of health equity in their palliative care educational curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]